One would have to live in a desert without senses to not see the drama triangle of Brad Pitt, Jennifer Anniston and Angelina Jolie. Here's some news from the front lines in the magazine W:
"What people don't understand is that we filmed ['Mr. & Mrs. Smith'] for a year," he told the publication. "We were still filming after Jen and I split up. Even then it doesn't mean that there was some kind of dastardly affair. There wasn't. I'm very proud of the way that it was handled. It was respectful."
This is the kind of frivolous, cowardly mush that comes from folks who can act like tough assassins, but love like fickle school children in reality. The break up of marriage wasn't dastardly. In fact it was respectful, something to be proud of. No, wait, not just proud. Very proud. Even God is impressed with the civility of it all, I'm sure. How do Brad and Jen relate since the respectful divorce?
"We still check in with each other," Brad said. "She was a big part of my life, and me hers. I don't see how there cannot be [that]. That's life, man. That's life."
The profundity of this statement is just one of the many reasons that people look up to actors as the role models they are. I can see why congress invites such people to pontificate about world affairs, and the U.N. makes them "ambassadors" to hurting hoards. It's nice to know that Brad still checks in with the wife of his youth. After all she was a big part of his life - joined together by God and all that. It had to be at least as important as teenage acne - a big part of life. Surely something as profound as marriage - created by God to express the unending love between Christ and his church - is going to require checking in with each other when it's ended. After all, "That's life, man. That's life."
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
The Cross Work of Christ
When Jesus died on the cross, multiple things were happening through that one event. It's difficult to boil the cross down to one thing that was accomplished there. The cross is the climax of man's existence on earth and the fulfillment of everything written in the Old Testament. There are many different historical and biblical themes that converge on the cross. Here are several things that Jesus accomplished at the cross:
Satisfaction of God – When Jesus died on the cross, a legal debt was satisfied with God. God has a standard of righteousness that must be perfectly kept, and all mankind has failed in this task. As a result, the wrath of God is being poured out on all mankind because of unrighteousness. Though we have failed to live up to our obligations before God, Jesus took upon himself the punishment that our sin had earned. God saw the work of Jesus on the cross as a sacrifice for the sins of his people. This is what we mean when we say that Jesus is our substitutiary atonement. Instead of punishing us for our sins, Jesus was punished as our substitute on the cross. It's important to realize how intentional and specific the cross was. Jesus knew exactly what sins he was dying for, and exactly how God's law has been violated in each individual. He didn't just die to make salvation possible, and he didn't just die to be an example of humility or love. He died to pay the specific debts of specific people as a propitiation for their sins. Propititation is a big word that means to turn aside God's wrath – to change God's disposition toward us from burning anger to loving acceptance. At the cross, God exchanged our sin for Christ's righteousness. He took the wages due for our sin, and placed them upon Jesus; and he took the righteousness that Jesus merited and placed it upon us. God's sense of justice is satisfied by Jesus' life and death on behalf of his people. (See Isaiah 53; Acts 4:24-28; Romans 3:23-26; 5:6; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 2:14-17; 7:26-27; 9:23-28; 10:14; 1 John 2:2; 4:9-10)
Redemption from Bondage – When Jesus died on the cross, he redeemed those for whom he died by paying the ransom for their deliverance. Jesus told his disciples that he came to serve and give his life as a ransom for many. At the last supper with his disciples, Jesus said, “This is my body which is given for you.” A ransom is the price paid to release a slave from bondage. When Adam sinned, the world was cursed by God and given up to bondage under Satan and death. For mankind, this means that everyone born in Adam must die – first, because of their relationship with Adam, and second, because of the sin they accumulate themselves. Jesus died on the cross to “buy back” those who are under the curse. Jesus has once for all set free those for whom he died, and they will never again be slaves to sin or cursed because of it. In redeeming man, Jesus also triumphed over Satan and the forces of evil, rendering his temptations and accusations impotent. In addition to the redemption of man, Jesus redeemed the entire created universe from the consequences of the curse. The apostle Paul describes the entire creation as “groaning” under its bondage to corruption because of man's fall. The cross has purchased the entire universe back from the curse. Because it is God who cursed the world as a punishment for Adam's sin, and because it is God's glory that has been offended by man's fall, it is God who must receive the ransom to buy it all back. In the eternal counsels of God, it was decided that Jesus' death on the cross would be a satisfactory payment to free the world and sinful man from bondage. (See Psalm 49:7-9, 15; Isaiah 35:10; Zechariah 3:1-5; Mark 10:45; Romans 8:18-25; Galatians 3:10-14; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:13-14; 2:13-15; Timothy 2:5-6; Hebrews 2:14-17; 9:12; 1 Peter 1:18-19; Revelation 5:9)
Reconciliation with God – When Jesus died on the cross, he reconciled us to God, or restored a relationship that had been broken since the fall of Adam. Everyone has an inherited natural hostility toward God, and God recognizes everyone as enemies. Jesus mediated between God and man at the cross, taking upon himself the enmity between God and those for whom he died. Reconciliation is closely related to the satisfaction gained by Christ's propitiation and the redemption bought by Christ's ransom. As the wrath of God was turned away at the cross, the channel of God's blessings was also opened to those who had been God's enemies. Since God's justice is satisfied, and man's ransom has been paid, nothing hinders God from granting his people all the blessings of adoption. God brings those who were his enemies into his family as children, and enables us to rejoice in him rather than hate him. He promises us eternal life in a new earth where there will be fullness of joy and pleasures forevermore. (See Romans 5:1, 6-11; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Galatians 4:1-7; Ephesians 1:5-10; Colossians 1:21-22; 1 Timothy 2:5-6; Hebrews 9:15)
Example for Man – When Jesus died on the cross, he provided an example of loving humility and perseverance in suffering. The cross was the place where Christ not only became the substitute, but also the example to be followed by those for whom he died. Jesus is the eternal Son of God, yet he left all the comfort and pleasure of his status behind to live as a man and die on the cross. In this event, he reconciled us to God and he also reconciled us to one another. In the same way that man is a natural enemy of God, man is also a natural enemy of other men. The heart of man is full of hatred and futility. By looking ahead to the reward of Heaven, Jesus was able to endure the suffering of the cross, taking our wrongs upon himself. In doing this, he gave us an example to follow, in that we can also take the wrongs of others upon ourselves for the joys promised in Heaven. (See 2 Corithians 8:8-9; Philippians 2:1-8; 1 Peter 2:2:20-25)
Satisfaction of God – When Jesus died on the cross, a legal debt was satisfied with God. God has a standard of righteousness that must be perfectly kept, and all mankind has failed in this task. As a result, the wrath of God is being poured out on all mankind because of unrighteousness. Though we have failed to live up to our obligations before God, Jesus took upon himself the punishment that our sin had earned. God saw the work of Jesus on the cross as a sacrifice for the sins of his people. This is what we mean when we say that Jesus is our substitutiary atonement. Instead of punishing us for our sins, Jesus was punished as our substitute on the cross. It's important to realize how intentional and specific the cross was. Jesus knew exactly what sins he was dying for, and exactly how God's law has been violated in each individual. He didn't just die to make salvation possible, and he didn't just die to be an example of humility or love. He died to pay the specific debts of specific people as a propitiation for their sins. Propititation is a big word that means to turn aside God's wrath – to change God's disposition toward us from burning anger to loving acceptance. At the cross, God exchanged our sin for Christ's righteousness. He took the wages due for our sin, and placed them upon Jesus; and he took the righteousness that Jesus merited and placed it upon us. God's sense of justice is satisfied by Jesus' life and death on behalf of his people. (See Isaiah 53; Acts 4:24-28; Romans 3:23-26; 5:6; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 2:14-17; 7:26-27; 9:23-28; 10:14; 1 John 2:2; 4:9-10)
Redemption from Bondage – When Jesus died on the cross, he redeemed those for whom he died by paying the ransom for their deliverance. Jesus told his disciples that he came to serve and give his life as a ransom for many. At the last supper with his disciples, Jesus said, “This is my body which is given for you.” A ransom is the price paid to release a slave from bondage. When Adam sinned, the world was cursed by God and given up to bondage under Satan and death. For mankind, this means that everyone born in Adam must die – first, because of their relationship with Adam, and second, because of the sin they accumulate themselves. Jesus died on the cross to “buy back” those who are under the curse. Jesus has once for all set free those for whom he died, and they will never again be slaves to sin or cursed because of it. In redeeming man, Jesus also triumphed over Satan and the forces of evil, rendering his temptations and accusations impotent. In addition to the redemption of man, Jesus redeemed the entire created universe from the consequences of the curse. The apostle Paul describes the entire creation as “groaning” under its bondage to corruption because of man's fall. The cross has purchased the entire universe back from the curse. Because it is God who cursed the world as a punishment for Adam's sin, and because it is God's glory that has been offended by man's fall, it is God who must receive the ransom to buy it all back. In the eternal counsels of God, it was decided that Jesus' death on the cross would be a satisfactory payment to free the world and sinful man from bondage. (See Psalm 49:7-9, 15; Isaiah 35:10; Zechariah 3:1-5; Mark 10:45; Romans 8:18-25; Galatians 3:10-14; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:13-14; 2:13-15; Timothy 2:5-6; Hebrews 2:14-17; 9:12; 1 Peter 1:18-19; Revelation 5:9)
Reconciliation with God – When Jesus died on the cross, he reconciled us to God, or restored a relationship that had been broken since the fall of Adam. Everyone has an inherited natural hostility toward God, and God recognizes everyone as enemies. Jesus mediated between God and man at the cross, taking upon himself the enmity between God and those for whom he died. Reconciliation is closely related to the satisfaction gained by Christ's propitiation and the redemption bought by Christ's ransom. As the wrath of God was turned away at the cross, the channel of God's blessings was also opened to those who had been God's enemies. Since God's justice is satisfied, and man's ransom has been paid, nothing hinders God from granting his people all the blessings of adoption. God brings those who were his enemies into his family as children, and enables us to rejoice in him rather than hate him. He promises us eternal life in a new earth where there will be fullness of joy and pleasures forevermore. (See Romans 5:1, 6-11; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Galatians 4:1-7; Ephesians 1:5-10; Colossians 1:21-22; 1 Timothy 2:5-6; Hebrews 9:15)
Example for Man – When Jesus died on the cross, he provided an example of loving humility and perseverance in suffering. The cross was the place where Christ not only became the substitute, but also the example to be followed by those for whom he died. Jesus is the eternal Son of God, yet he left all the comfort and pleasure of his status behind to live as a man and die on the cross. In this event, he reconciled us to God and he also reconciled us to one another. In the same way that man is a natural enemy of God, man is also a natural enemy of other men. The heart of man is full of hatred and futility. By looking ahead to the reward of Heaven, Jesus was able to endure the suffering of the cross, taking our wrongs upon himself. In doing this, he gave us an example to follow, in that we can also take the wrongs of others upon ourselves for the joys promised in Heaven. (See 2 Corithians 8:8-9; Philippians 2:1-8; 1 Peter 2:2:20-25)
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Can Anything That Difficult be True?
We live in such a comfortable country, with such amazing temporal prosperity, indoctrinated with so much therapeutic garbage, bombarded by messages espousing perpetual personal satisfaction at any cost that I doubt the following text of Scripture will even penetrate our ears.
3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it" (Matthew 19:3-12).
As various cultures seek to make sense of the world, and force what they want out of life, they will naturally come up with acceptable ways of thinking and behaving. In Israel, the culture had grown to the point where they had marriage, divorce and remarriage in a similar method as we have in our own culture. The Roman culture was very similar in values to Israel's in this area, except that they didn't have all sorts of rules to make it all seem righteous. Rome was an open free for all, whereas Israel was a subtle, manipulative free for all - thus, the charge of hypocrisy. So our host cultural values in America seem like a kind of meld between the two - certain sexual lifestyles consistent with Rome's values are shunned as they would have been in Israel, but folks have found their ways around the rules to indulge the same desires as the Romans. It was into this kind of mess that Jesus first spoke his words, and they fit well with our own context today.
I'll give the simplified version of the above text for the sake of brevity:
"So whatcha think of no-fault divorce, Jesus?"
"The same thing I think of all divorce - it's wrong."
"Well if it wasn't God's will, why did Moses tell the people to get divorced, Mr. Radical?"
"Because you're a hard-hearted rebel, Moses let you divorce, but those days are over. You don't get divorced unless you find out the one you're engaged to has sex behind your back before your wedding day. Only then can you decide to not consummate the marriage. If you're already married, and you get divorced and remarried, you've committed adultery. You can't separate what God joined together."
How do you think folks who heard that conversation would respond? Would you believe Jesus? What if you were someone who was contemplating marriage? Would you second guess your decision? What if you were stuck with a jerk spouse? Would you have any hope of improvement upon hearing Jesus' words? We know how the disciples responded. Again, I'll break it down for our modern ears to hear:
"Good grief, Jesus! If marriage is that permanent, I can't imagine why anyone would want to get married at all. Now I know why they call it a ball and chain! It's just not worth the risk of getting a loser spouse."
"Oh, I know it's hard to hear. It hurts your ears so badly that only the ones who are given understanding will even accept it."
So the disciples responded exactly how we would respond upon hearing the radical nature of marriage. According to Jesus, you have one shot. Let me repeat. According to Jesus, you have one shot. Just one. If you blow it, and pick the wrong one, too bad. If your spouse turns out to be a jerk, too bad. If your life is really hard because your spouse is a terrible decision-maker, too bad. If your "true love" finally walks into your life five years into your marriage, too bad. If your spouse gets an injury that prevents sex forever, too bad. If your spouse has lost that lovin' feelin', too bad. If your wife is contentious, too bad. If your husband is selfish, too bad. If your wife burns everything she cooks, too bad. If your husband refuses to take out the trash, too bad. If all you ever do is fight all the time, too bad. If you are from Venus, while your husband is from Mars, too bad. If you are from Mars while your wife is from Venus, too bad. If Brad Pitt happens to see you in the mall and falls head over heals for you, too bad. If Angelina Jolie stops by your house to ask for jumper cables and wants to run away with you, too bad. If Oprah and Dr. Phil and Uncle Sam all join forces to tell you it's alright, too bad. If every religious leader you come to says it'll be okay this one time, too bad. Too bad, too bad, too bad. If you're not dead, you're not free.
Does that sound too difficult? We have this way, in our comfortable therapeutic age, of dismissing as untrue anything that sounds too radical to be happy with. We place the highest value on self-determination. No one, including God, has the right to demand from us what we don't want to demand from ourselves. If it gets in the way of our self-actualization or our self-fulfillment or our selfish desire for immediate pleasure, then it simply cannot be reality. The same was true in Jesus' day, in people's hearts even if it wasn't flaunted as a cultural value.
That's why Jesus brings up the eunuchs. Eunuchs, among other things, served in courts of royalty because there wasn't much danger in them getting the hots for the female members of the household. How does a eunuch illustrate Jesus' point? Well, first of all, eunuchs are servants. Servants serve. They aren't self-determining. Others make their decisions for them. Second, eunuchs from birth probably didn't have much say in that little bit of surgery that would affect the rest of their natural lives. Maybe they wanted to have children someday. Too bad. Maybe they wanted to have chest hair. Too bad. Maybe they didn't want to be around a bunch of rich, hot chicks while not being able to want them. Too bad. Maybe they didn't want their anatomy to be treated like a pet dog. Too bad. What was done to them at birth, or at capture, would be carried with them the rest of their lives. Once the deed was done, there was no going back. They were eunuchs till death, with no chance of altering the future.
Then there are the ones, like Paul, who might as well have been a eunuch. Without actual surgery, Paul declared himself to be a eunuch by his actions. Jesus did as well. What do I mean by this? I mean that certain parts of their anatomy were totally useless because of the priorities they set in building the Kingdom of God. So as the disciples started pouting, "Why get married at all then, if you gotta stay that way the rest of your life?" Jesus answered, "Oh, poor babies. Might as well be eunuchs." And in using eunuchs as an example, Jesus was just as surely pointing to himself. He denied himself the pleasure and burden of marriage.
I think the reason folks want to get divorced is because they're looking ahead. I know very few who get divorced and not remarried. Surely Jesus wouldn't demand that we stay in an unhappy marriage, especially when there's so many other "eligible" people out there. Surely Jesus wouldn't deprive us of the highest satisfaction we are able to achieve for ourselves. Surely Jesus wouldn't expect us to stick with a decision for the rest of our lives. Surely the words, "What God has joined together, let no man separate" was just a rhetorical flourish and overstatement for the sake of the ceremony. Can anything that difficult be true?
3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it" (Matthew 19:3-12).
As various cultures seek to make sense of the world, and force what they want out of life, they will naturally come up with acceptable ways of thinking and behaving. In Israel, the culture had grown to the point where they had marriage, divorce and remarriage in a similar method as we have in our own culture. The Roman culture was very similar in values to Israel's in this area, except that they didn't have all sorts of rules to make it all seem righteous. Rome was an open free for all, whereas Israel was a subtle, manipulative free for all - thus, the charge of hypocrisy. So our host cultural values in America seem like a kind of meld between the two - certain sexual lifestyles consistent with Rome's values are shunned as they would have been in Israel, but folks have found their ways around the rules to indulge the same desires as the Romans. It was into this kind of mess that Jesus first spoke his words, and they fit well with our own context today.
I'll give the simplified version of the above text for the sake of brevity:
"So whatcha think of no-fault divorce, Jesus?"
"The same thing I think of all divorce - it's wrong."
"Well if it wasn't God's will, why did Moses tell the people to get divorced, Mr. Radical?"
"Because you're a hard-hearted rebel, Moses let you divorce, but those days are over. You don't get divorced unless you find out the one you're engaged to has sex behind your back before your wedding day. Only then can you decide to not consummate the marriage. If you're already married, and you get divorced and remarried, you've committed adultery. You can't separate what God joined together."
How do you think folks who heard that conversation would respond? Would you believe Jesus? What if you were someone who was contemplating marriage? Would you second guess your decision? What if you were stuck with a jerk spouse? Would you have any hope of improvement upon hearing Jesus' words? We know how the disciples responded. Again, I'll break it down for our modern ears to hear:
"Good grief, Jesus! If marriage is that permanent, I can't imagine why anyone would want to get married at all. Now I know why they call it a ball and chain! It's just not worth the risk of getting a loser spouse."
"Oh, I know it's hard to hear. It hurts your ears so badly that only the ones who are given understanding will even accept it."
So the disciples responded exactly how we would respond upon hearing the radical nature of marriage. According to Jesus, you have one shot. Let me repeat. According to Jesus, you have one shot. Just one. If you blow it, and pick the wrong one, too bad. If your spouse turns out to be a jerk, too bad. If your life is really hard because your spouse is a terrible decision-maker, too bad. If your "true love" finally walks into your life five years into your marriage, too bad. If your spouse gets an injury that prevents sex forever, too bad. If your spouse has lost that lovin' feelin', too bad. If your wife is contentious, too bad. If your husband is selfish, too bad. If your wife burns everything she cooks, too bad. If your husband refuses to take out the trash, too bad. If all you ever do is fight all the time, too bad. If you are from Venus, while your husband is from Mars, too bad. If you are from Mars while your wife is from Venus, too bad. If Brad Pitt happens to see you in the mall and falls head over heals for you, too bad. If Angelina Jolie stops by your house to ask for jumper cables and wants to run away with you, too bad. If Oprah and Dr. Phil and Uncle Sam all join forces to tell you it's alright, too bad. If every religious leader you come to says it'll be okay this one time, too bad. Too bad, too bad, too bad. If you're not dead, you're not free.
Does that sound too difficult? We have this way, in our comfortable therapeutic age, of dismissing as untrue anything that sounds too radical to be happy with. We place the highest value on self-determination. No one, including God, has the right to demand from us what we don't want to demand from ourselves. If it gets in the way of our self-actualization or our self-fulfillment or our selfish desire for immediate pleasure, then it simply cannot be reality. The same was true in Jesus' day, in people's hearts even if it wasn't flaunted as a cultural value.
That's why Jesus brings up the eunuchs. Eunuchs, among other things, served in courts of royalty because there wasn't much danger in them getting the hots for the female members of the household. How does a eunuch illustrate Jesus' point? Well, first of all, eunuchs are servants. Servants serve. They aren't self-determining. Others make their decisions for them. Second, eunuchs from birth probably didn't have much say in that little bit of surgery that would affect the rest of their natural lives. Maybe they wanted to have children someday. Too bad. Maybe they wanted to have chest hair. Too bad. Maybe they didn't want to be around a bunch of rich, hot chicks while not being able to want them. Too bad. Maybe they didn't want their anatomy to be treated like a pet dog. Too bad. What was done to them at birth, or at capture, would be carried with them the rest of their lives. Once the deed was done, there was no going back. They were eunuchs till death, with no chance of altering the future.
Then there are the ones, like Paul, who might as well have been a eunuch. Without actual surgery, Paul declared himself to be a eunuch by his actions. Jesus did as well. What do I mean by this? I mean that certain parts of their anatomy were totally useless because of the priorities they set in building the Kingdom of God. So as the disciples started pouting, "Why get married at all then, if you gotta stay that way the rest of your life?" Jesus answered, "Oh, poor babies. Might as well be eunuchs." And in using eunuchs as an example, Jesus was just as surely pointing to himself. He denied himself the pleasure and burden of marriage.
I think the reason folks want to get divorced is because they're looking ahead. I know very few who get divorced and not remarried. Surely Jesus wouldn't demand that we stay in an unhappy marriage, especially when there's so many other "eligible" people out there. Surely Jesus wouldn't deprive us of the highest satisfaction we are able to achieve for ourselves. Surely Jesus wouldn't expect us to stick with a decision for the rest of our lives. Surely the words, "What God has joined together, let no man separate" was just a rhetorical flourish and overstatement for the sake of the ceremony. Can anything that difficult be true?
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Is Looking at Porn the Same as Adultery? Continued
I asked the question, "Is looking at porn the same thing as adultery, and therefore a biblical grounds for divorce? I promised you gymnastics to answer the question. Here is the verse, Matthew 19:9: "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery." Now for the gymnastics. Matthew uses a word for sexual immorality, not adultery in this verse. Why is that? The little word causes an awful lot of frustration for those trying to decide what exception there is to the prohibition on divorce. Here's why.
1. By using the word for immorality rather than the word for adultery, Matthew seems to broaden the circumstances under which one could get a divorce. In other words, if Matthew would have written, "except for adultery," we would all know what that means, and we wouldn't even dream of thinking pornography is grounds for divorce.
2. However, because Matthew wrote, "except for sexual immorality," we are left trying to figure out all the possible ways mankind can be sexually immoral. Can a couple get divorced because the husband likes to wear women's clothing? Is that sexual immorality worthy of divorce? If lust is adultery in the heart, is that grounds for divorce? By using sexual immorality, rather than the very specific adultery, it seems couples could get divorced for just about anything, being that we're all sexual beings and all still struggling with swimming in a fallen culture with less than perfected hearts. Is this really what Jesus (and Matthew) had in mind?
3. Is looking at pornography adultery? I don't think so. When Jesus said if one looks at another with lust, he has committed adultery in his heart, I think we need to realize there is a difference between adultery in the heart and adultery. If you think this sounds like double-talk, then consider this: John says anger at a brother is murder and James says covetous passion is murder. Is it really murder worthy of the death penalty or life in prison? Of course not. I think what Jesus is saying is that these sinful actions like murder and adultery begin in the heart with things like anger and lust. Allowed free reign, all lust would be adultery. And all anger would be murder. If one doubts this, read war history where soldiers were left to carry out their desires.
4. So if one believes that Matthew left an "exception clause" in the prohibition against divorce, is looking at pornography adultery that is worthy of divorce? No. But I think most would agree that it's some kind of sexual immorality. And that is what appears to be the exception in Matthew. So according to Matthew, it doesn't take adultery. Any ol' sexual sin will do if you really want out of your marriage. That is, if Matthew did, in fact, leave an exception to the prohibition against divorce.
5. However, before any depressed spouse starts shouting, "Yippee!" I think it's only fair to stretch your mind a bit. What makes pornography pornography? Have you ever thought about that? Is it nudity? Is it a rating? Is it an action being carried out? I would argue that many R rated movies have everything to get the mind racing that pornography has. Is it not porn because you can't actually see the parts connecting? (Except, of course, for your favorite Hollywood actors' two foot long tongues scouring the inside of each other's mouths.) Is it not porn because there's a little more time between sex scenes in a Hollywood flick? Is it not porn because Hollywood movies are more socially acceptable? You know the action being simulated in an R or even PG-13 movie. Why is it not pornography? In addition, are romance novels that stretch women's hormones to the breaking point and appear to be just as addictive as mags and movies are to men also pornography? Go to a used bookstore. My goodness, if those little books aren't popular! And what about soap operas? Why are they so appealing? Is it really the long goofy stares before commercials? Of course not. It's the gut-wrenching romantic intrigue of following depraved human beings on a daily basis. So before we come down too hard on those who have problems with porn, we should do a little deeper assessment.
Now that my gymnastic workout is winding down, it's time to ask the real question. Is there such a thing as a biblical grounds for divorce? Was Matthew leaving folks an out if they think their spouse turns out to be a pervert? John Piper thinks no. He doesn't believe Matthew was giving an exception. He thinks all divorce is against God's revealed will. His arguments are fair ones, but he is in the minority. Most evangelical conservative folks think there is an "exception clause" in the Matthew text we looked at. Now, just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true, but it does give me a reason to tread very carefully over what they've said. However, when the majority view doesn't make as much sense as the minority view from Scripture, I'm all for the minority view. In this case, I'm tempted to agree with Piper. I think Piper's view has serious merit. In his view, one can't get divorced for sexual immorality at all. Therefore, call porn whatever you want, it's only grounds for forgiveness and continued marriage. Call adultery whatever you want, it doesn't give you grounds for divorce.
Piper's view has been called the "betrothal view" because those who hold this view think that Matthew was referring to people in his day who were betrothed (like Mary and Joseph in the beginning of Matthew). Joseph, for example was betrothed to Mary, but when he found out she was pregnant, he couldn't just "ask for the ring back." He would have had to divorce her. So betrothal in that culture was more serious and binding than our idea of engagement, which more and more is just an excuse for a couple to live together for awhile without real commitment. Only Matthew gives the supposed exception clause. The other gospel writers don't give any reason for divorce, and call all remarriage after divorce adultery. It's interesting that only Matthew gives the full account of the birth of Christ, including Joseph's dilemma.
So here's what I'm saying:
1. I want to err on the side of marriage, not divorce, because marriage is God's design. Divorce is necessitated by man's sin.
2. I can sympathize with someone caught in a sucky marriage. I think Scripture spends a lot of time helping people deal with suffering rightly. But just because someone's marriage sucks doesn't give them the automatic right to end it by any means possible. We need to all learn rugged perseverance.
3. Marriage is never commanded in the Bible. And neither is divorce. So if one gets married, he or she should consider it a finished act until death. Bearing with one another through sin and hardship only makes Christ look more beautiful and displays the true purpose of marriage as a picture of Christ and the church.
4. Most of the time, folks contemplating divorce are doing it out of convenience or offense. Both reasons are wrong with only a little thought to prove it. Someone might say, "Yeah, but Jesus allows for divorce in adultery because he knows I could never trust my wife again. He knows how hurt I feel." Is Jesus that soft on us? He told Peter to forgive infinite wrongs, even when it hurts. He told folks in Revelation that they were about to be tortured and killed for his name, but if they kept faith they'd be in Heaven soon. He told Paul to live with his thorn. I fear we've fallen for the therapeutic pansy Jesus. I think in the midst of every conflict, we are always wisest to see how God might be refining us through it rather than looking for the backdoor to the furnace.
1. By using the word for immorality rather than the word for adultery, Matthew seems to broaden the circumstances under which one could get a divorce. In other words, if Matthew would have written, "except for adultery," we would all know what that means, and we wouldn't even dream of thinking pornography is grounds for divorce.
2. However, because Matthew wrote, "except for sexual immorality," we are left trying to figure out all the possible ways mankind can be sexually immoral. Can a couple get divorced because the husband likes to wear women's clothing? Is that sexual immorality worthy of divorce? If lust is adultery in the heart, is that grounds for divorce? By using sexual immorality, rather than the very specific adultery, it seems couples could get divorced for just about anything, being that we're all sexual beings and all still struggling with swimming in a fallen culture with less than perfected hearts. Is this really what Jesus (and Matthew) had in mind?
3. Is looking at pornography adultery? I don't think so. When Jesus said if one looks at another with lust, he has committed adultery in his heart, I think we need to realize there is a difference between adultery in the heart and adultery. If you think this sounds like double-talk, then consider this: John says anger at a brother is murder and James says covetous passion is murder. Is it really murder worthy of the death penalty or life in prison? Of course not. I think what Jesus is saying is that these sinful actions like murder and adultery begin in the heart with things like anger and lust. Allowed free reign, all lust would be adultery. And all anger would be murder. If one doubts this, read war history where soldiers were left to carry out their desires.
4. So if one believes that Matthew left an "exception clause" in the prohibition against divorce, is looking at pornography adultery that is worthy of divorce? No. But I think most would agree that it's some kind of sexual immorality. And that is what appears to be the exception in Matthew. So according to Matthew, it doesn't take adultery. Any ol' sexual sin will do if you really want out of your marriage. That is, if Matthew did, in fact, leave an exception to the prohibition against divorce.
5. However, before any depressed spouse starts shouting, "Yippee!" I think it's only fair to stretch your mind a bit. What makes pornography pornography? Have you ever thought about that? Is it nudity? Is it a rating? Is it an action being carried out? I would argue that many R rated movies have everything to get the mind racing that pornography has. Is it not porn because you can't actually see the parts connecting? (Except, of course, for your favorite Hollywood actors' two foot long tongues scouring the inside of each other's mouths.) Is it not porn because there's a little more time between sex scenes in a Hollywood flick? Is it not porn because Hollywood movies are more socially acceptable? You know the action being simulated in an R or even PG-13 movie. Why is it not pornography? In addition, are romance novels that stretch women's hormones to the breaking point and appear to be just as addictive as mags and movies are to men also pornography? Go to a used bookstore. My goodness, if those little books aren't popular! And what about soap operas? Why are they so appealing? Is it really the long goofy stares before commercials? Of course not. It's the gut-wrenching romantic intrigue of following depraved human beings on a daily basis. So before we come down too hard on those who have problems with porn, we should do a little deeper assessment.
Now that my gymnastic workout is winding down, it's time to ask the real question. Is there such a thing as a biblical grounds for divorce? Was Matthew leaving folks an out if they think their spouse turns out to be a pervert? John Piper thinks no. He doesn't believe Matthew was giving an exception. He thinks all divorce is against God's revealed will. His arguments are fair ones, but he is in the minority. Most evangelical conservative folks think there is an "exception clause" in the Matthew text we looked at. Now, just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true, but it does give me a reason to tread very carefully over what they've said. However, when the majority view doesn't make as much sense as the minority view from Scripture, I'm all for the minority view. In this case, I'm tempted to agree with Piper. I think Piper's view has serious merit. In his view, one can't get divorced for sexual immorality at all. Therefore, call porn whatever you want, it's only grounds for forgiveness and continued marriage. Call adultery whatever you want, it doesn't give you grounds for divorce.
Piper's view has been called the "betrothal view" because those who hold this view think that Matthew was referring to people in his day who were betrothed (like Mary and Joseph in the beginning of Matthew). Joseph, for example was betrothed to Mary, but when he found out she was pregnant, he couldn't just "ask for the ring back." He would have had to divorce her. So betrothal in that culture was more serious and binding than our idea of engagement, which more and more is just an excuse for a couple to live together for awhile without real commitment. Only Matthew gives the supposed exception clause. The other gospel writers don't give any reason for divorce, and call all remarriage after divorce adultery. It's interesting that only Matthew gives the full account of the birth of Christ, including Joseph's dilemma.
So here's what I'm saying:
1. I want to err on the side of marriage, not divorce, because marriage is God's design. Divorce is necessitated by man's sin.
2. I can sympathize with someone caught in a sucky marriage. I think Scripture spends a lot of time helping people deal with suffering rightly. But just because someone's marriage sucks doesn't give them the automatic right to end it by any means possible. We need to all learn rugged perseverance.
3. Marriage is never commanded in the Bible. And neither is divorce. So if one gets married, he or she should consider it a finished act until death. Bearing with one another through sin and hardship only makes Christ look more beautiful and displays the true purpose of marriage as a picture of Christ and the church.
4. Most of the time, folks contemplating divorce are doing it out of convenience or offense. Both reasons are wrong with only a little thought to prove it. Someone might say, "Yeah, but Jesus allows for divorce in adultery because he knows I could never trust my wife again. He knows how hurt I feel." Is Jesus that soft on us? He told Peter to forgive infinite wrongs, even when it hurts. He told folks in Revelation that they were about to be tortured and killed for his name, but if they kept faith they'd be in Heaven soon. He told Paul to live with his thorn. I fear we've fallen for the therapeutic pansy Jesus. I think in the midst of every conflict, we are always wisest to see how God might be refining us through it rather than looking for the backdoor to the furnace.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Is Looking at Porn the Same as Adultery?
Is looking at pornography the same thing as adultery, and therefore, a justifiable cause for divorce? We'll look at this question over two posts. The question itself comes from an inference drawn from Matthew 5:28. "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Couple that verse with what Jesus says in Matthew 19:9 - "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery" - and you get a supposed justification for divorce. While I wholeheartedly agree that we must let the Bible say what it says, I think we need to be very careful to let it say what it says, and not what it doesn't say.
In the Old Testament, God commanded the death of whole nations by the people of Israel. From several texts, we can rightly gather that Jesus is himself God. The apostles tell the church to follow in the footsteps of Christ, and live our lives after his example. Put all that together and here's what we come up with: Christians should kill whole nations of people because Jesus, being the God of the Old Testament, killed whole nations, and we're to follow in his footsteps. We can see that this kind of mental gymnastics is not only irresponsible, but dangerous. However, I'm afraid we may have to do some in order to understand this question.
I think to rightly come to terms with these texts, we have to consider what the real issue is. Is the real issue God's concern over an offended person's feelings? In other words, does Jesus feel sorry for a man with an unfaithful wife, so he says, "God ahead man, I wouldn't want to live with her either. I feel your pain." When Jesus gave adultery as an exception for his prohibition of divorce, what was he seeking to protect? He doesn't come right out and tell us. So we're stuck trying to play gymnastics. Tread lightly.
I think the most important thing we can do when thinking about this is keep a very high view of marriage. Any attempt to belittle marriage or treat divorce frivolously by using a so-called exception clause is wrong. God has joined a husband and wife together with a little of his Spirit in the union. It is not something that should be broken lightly. It is also important to understand what marriage is. Marriage is a covenant, or a pledge of faithfulness to another person. In marriage, two people pledge to be a companion to one another. Part of this companionship is sexual fidelity and exclusivity.
When that exclusive sexual claim has been compromised, then it does appear that Jesus grants a permission to divorce. However, before doing so, the offended party should understand that Jesus also says that divorce is granted because of hardness of heart. So an unfaithful spouse shows a hardness of heart in committing adultery, and an offended spouse shows a hardness of heart in breaking off the union. The offended party should also consider that God is a husband to every member of his church, and never divorces his bride for any reason, including spiritual adultery. He absorbs the debt, including all the emotional pain of betrayal upon his own body on the cross. He is a true husband who lays down his life for his unfaithful bride. We're just stretching out in this post. The real gymnastics will begin next time. :)
In the Old Testament, God commanded the death of whole nations by the people of Israel. From several texts, we can rightly gather that Jesus is himself God. The apostles tell the church to follow in the footsteps of Christ, and live our lives after his example. Put all that together and here's what we come up with: Christians should kill whole nations of people because Jesus, being the God of the Old Testament, killed whole nations, and we're to follow in his footsteps. We can see that this kind of mental gymnastics is not only irresponsible, but dangerous. However, I'm afraid we may have to do some in order to understand this question.
I think to rightly come to terms with these texts, we have to consider what the real issue is. Is the real issue God's concern over an offended person's feelings? In other words, does Jesus feel sorry for a man with an unfaithful wife, so he says, "God ahead man, I wouldn't want to live with her either. I feel your pain." When Jesus gave adultery as an exception for his prohibition of divorce, what was he seeking to protect? He doesn't come right out and tell us. So we're stuck trying to play gymnastics. Tread lightly.
I think the most important thing we can do when thinking about this is keep a very high view of marriage. Any attempt to belittle marriage or treat divorce frivolously by using a so-called exception clause is wrong. God has joined a husband and wife together with a little of his Spirit in the union. It is not something that should be broken lightly. It is also important to understand what marriage is. Marriage is a covenant, or a pledge of faithfulness to another person. In marriage, two people pledge to be a companion to one another. Part of this companionship is sexual fidelity and exclusivity.
When that exclusive sexual claim has been compromised, then it does appear that Jesus grants a permission to divorce. However, before doing so, the offended party should understand that Jesus also says that divorce is granted because of hardness of heart. So an unfaithful spouse shows a hardness of heart in committing adultery, and an offended spouse shows a hardness of heart in breaking off the union. The offended party should also consider that God is a husband to every member of his church, and never divorces his bride for any reason, including spiritual adultery. He absorbs the debt, including all the emotional pain of betrayal upon his own body on the cross. He is a true husband who lays down his life for his unfaithful bride. We're just stretching out in this post. The real gymnastics will begin next time. :)
Friday, December 19, 2008
The Gospel and the Poor
Timothy Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presb. Church in NYC, has written an excellent journal article on how the gospel affects giving to the poor. It's a little long, but worth working through. Keller is one of the most respected voices for missional-type thinking in the church today. If you notice that I occasionally link to other blogs, sites, etc., it's because I find others write things that I would love to be able to say, but haven't.
John Piper - Sex Guru
John Piper has some great thoughts about mismatched sexual desire between a husband and a wife.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Last Minute Gift Idea
If you're having a hard time thinking of a last minute gift, consider Spectacular Sins by John Piper. This book just might be Piper's best book yet (that's like trying to rate one of Tiger Woods's shots as better than another). The book is tiny and short for your lazy reading friends and family - just over 100 small pages. But the message is anything but small. A little quote to tease you.
If that doesn't make you want to jet over to amazon and get this book, your jetter is broke. If you order soon and get your shipping right, you could have it in your little hands in time for giftwrap. Or just get it for yourself and curl up with it after the family goes home.
"I am writing this book to build a vision of God into our lives that will not let us down in the worst of times. I mean really bad times. Horrific times. Who is prepared to meet the Agony that is coming? Our worship services and our preaching too often pamper us. They coddle.... The coddled Western world will sooner or later give way to great affliction. And when it does, whose vision of God will hold? Where are Christians being prepared for great global sorrows? Where is the Christian mind and soul being prepared for the horrors to come? Christians in the West are weakened by wimpy worldviews. And wimpy worldviews make wimpy Christians. God is weightless in our lives. He is not terrifyingly magnificent. His sovereignty is secondary (at best) to his sensitivity.... Our felt needs are about to change dramatically. Pastors will be glad if they are ahead of the curve. Otherwise, it might be too late. Coddled people will not be good listeners when their world collapses. They will be numb with confusion and rage at the God who wasn't supposed to allow this. "If this is the way God is, why didn't you tell us?"
If that doesn't make you want to jet over to amazon and get this book, your jetter is broke. If you order soon and get your shipping right, you could have it in your little hands in time for giftwrap. Or just get it for yourself and curl up with it after the family goes home.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Our Desperate Daily Need
“Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end” (Hebrews 3:12-14).
We have a desperate daily need for one another. This is true for couples as well as single people. Over time, married people settle into habits and patterns of life that cater to our worldly appetites. And instead of spouses confronting one another, we conspire together to build our own personal kingdoms rather than God's. We choose together to deny the power of the Gospel by following the course of this world rather than renewing our minds. We clearly see this in the Bible in couples like Ahab and Jezebel and Ananias and Sapphira.
On the other hand, when a couple conspires together for the glory of God, a powerful force for the Gospel can be established. We clearly see this in the Bible in a couple like Aquila and Priscilla. However, behind every Aquila and Priscilla we'll likely find someone like the apostle Paul, encouraging and challenging and stirring up to love and good works. Deitrich Bonhoeffer says it this way:
When Christians live together, at some time and in some way it must come to the point that one Christian personally declares God's Word and will to another. . . . We talk to one another about the help we both need. We admonish one another to go the way Christ bids us to go. We warn one another against the disobedience that is our undoing. We are gentle and we are firm with one another, for we know both God's kindness and God's firmness. . . . When another Christian falls into obvious sin, an admonition is imperative, because God's Word demands it. The practice of discipline in the community of faith begins with friends who are close to one another. Words of admonition and reproach must be risked when a lapse from God's Word in doctrine or life endangers a community that lives together, and with it the whole community of faith. Nothing can be more cruel than that leniency which abandons others to their sin. Nothing can be more compassionate than that severe reprimand which calls another Christian in one's community back from the path of sin. When we allow nothing but God's Word to stand between us, judging and helping, it is a service of mercy, an ultimate offer of genuine community.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Some Awesome Arrows
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)